Citation Nr: 0014288
Decision Date: 05/31/00 Archive Date: 06/05/00
DOCKET NO. 99-02 446 ) DATE
)
)
On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Waco, Texas
THE ISSUE
Entitlement to service connection for a ventral hernia with
reflux, claimed as a stomach injury.
REPRESENTATION
Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans
WITNESSES AT HEARING ON APPEAL
Appellant and a friend
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD
D. Dean
INTRODUCTION
The appellant had active military service from December 1965
to November 1967.
This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board)
from rating determinations by the Waco Regional Office (RO)
of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). In June 1999, a
hearing was held at the RO before a Decision Review Officer
at which the appellant, a friend and his representative
appeared and explained their contentions. At that hearing,
an appeal on the additional issue of entitlement to service
connection for the residuals of a fall in service was
withdrawn by the appellant. (See hearing transcript, p. 1;
see also VA Form 21-4138, dated June 30, 1999.) At that
hearing, it was indicated that the appellant would attempt to
obtain some private medical records dating from 1969 from a
Dr. McDowell; in August 1999, the appellant's representative
informed the RO that they had been unsuccessful in obtaining
the medical records and requested that the claim be decided
based on the available evidence.
The Board notes that the RO has recently denied additional
claims by the appellant seeking service connection for
hearing loss and a gunshot wound to the left leg. The
current evidentiary record does not reflect a timely notice
of disagreement by the appellant relating to either of these
issues.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. A ventral hernia with reflux is not shown by competent
medical evidence to have been present during the appellant's
active service.
2. The appellant has not submitted competent medical
evidence to establish a nexus between his current ventral
hernia with reflux and any event in service.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
The claim seeking service connection for a ventral hernia
with reflux, claimed as a stomach injury, is not well
grounded. 38 C.F.R. § 5107(a) (West 1991).
REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION
Service connection may be granted for disability resulting
from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service.
38 U.S.C.A. § 1110, 1131 (West 1991). The aforementioned
factual basis may be established by medical evidence,
competent lay evidence, or both. 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(b). In
general, lay witnesses, such as the appellant, are only
competent to testify as to factual matters, such as what
symptoms an individual was manifesting at a given time;
however, issues involving medical causation or diagnosis
require competent medical evidence. Espiritu v. Derwinski,
2 Vet. App. 492 (1992); Grottveit v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 91
(1993).
Of course, service connection can be granted for any disease
diagnosed after discharge from service when all of the
evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes
that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R.
§ 3.303(d).
In addition, a claimant is always obliged to present evidence
of a well-grounded claim; that is, a plausible claim, one
which is either meritorious on its own or capable of
substantiation. Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 78 (1990).
Moreover, a well-grounded claim must be supported by
evidence, not just allegations. Tirpak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.
App. 609 (1992). If a claim is not well grounded, then no
duty to assist the claimant in the development of that claim
attaches to VA. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a).
The U. S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (hereinafter
referred to as the Court) has held repeatedly that, in order
for a claim seeking to establish service incurrence of a
disability to be considered plausible, there must be
competent evidence of a current disability; of incurrence of
a disease or injury in service; and of a relationship or
"nexus" between the current disability and an injury or
disease incurred in service or some other manifestation of
the disability during service. Rabideau v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.
App. 141, 143 (1992); Cuevas v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 542,
548 (1992); Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 506 (1995).
In the present claim, the appellant contends that, in 1966
while serving in Vietnam, he slipped in some mud and slid
into a truck, falling on the parking light and bruising his
stomach. He further contends that, ever since this episode
in service, he has experienced pain and intestinal upset at
the site of the injury.
On the other hand, the service medical records reflect no
complaint, treatment, finding or diagnosis indicative of a
ventral hernia or stomach injury of any kind. Although the
appellant claims that he reported the injury at the time of
his separation from service in November 1967 (see June 1999
hearing transcript, p. 3), the written Report of Medical
History (SF 89) signed by the appellant at that time reflects
no such statement or notation by the appellant. In fact, he
specifically denied having frequent indigestion or any
stomach trouble on that form. Likewise, his separation
medical examination in November 1967 failed to disclose the
presence of a ventral hernia. Instead, the November 1967
clinical evaluation of his abdomen and viscera was normal.
In April 1998, the appellant sought treatment at a VA
facility for complaints of abdominal pain for the previous
two years. He reported that he had experienced such pain
since falling and hitting his abdomen in Vietnam, but he
indicated that the pains had become much worse in the
previous two years. A ventral hernia with reflux was
discovered at this time, as well as a small hiatal hernia,
and the appellant was also believed to have gastro-esophageal
reflex disease (GERD). He was treated through July 1998 for
an infestation by Helicobacter pylori, with no relief
obtained. None of the medical professionals who saw or
treated the appellant at this time expressed the opinion that
his complaints or problems were, or could be, related in any
way to the incident in service which he had reported.
Several lay statements submitted by the appellant in support
of the present claim in July 1998 attest to personal, current
observations of a lump on the appellant's abdomen and of his
complaints of indigestion and abdominal pain.
In the absence of competent medical evidence establishing the
presence of a ventral hernia with reflux in service, or
establishing a nexus between the appellant's current problems
and an event in service, the claim must be denied as not well
grounded.
ORDER
The appeal is denied.
J. F. GOUGH
Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals